How do scientists determine the age of fossils that have been under the surface of the earth for thousands of years? Scientific American Editor Michael Moyer explains the process of radiocarbon dating.
WATCH more Instant Egghead: http://goo.gl/CkXwKj
SUBSCRIBE to our channel: http://goo.gl/fmoXZ
VISIT ScientificAmerican.com for the latest science news:http://goo.gl/lHq0CH
This all sounds nice, but it isn't accurate. It's an opinion. Carbon Dating Scientists have repeatedly said old fossils or rocks are over 4 Billion Years old when they are only 6,000 years old. That's wildly inaccurate.
how can they say that the ratio of 14-c and other carbons is constant as long as the organism is alive and eating, when there are thousand and thousands of variables out there that may affect the result, this is a pretty baseless opinion, I can't believe how carbon 14 dating got accepted in today's science when it's results are nowhere close to accurate
cut the theatrics, lets see a demo. we all know that in theory, standard bricks are 115 mm thick,
however all bricklayers know that 99.9% of them rarely go over 107mm. we don't want the children's version, we want to know how we can test the theory in practice.
After all so much is often at stake when this stuff is used, That it should be taught to year seven kids. And it needs to be beyond doubt.
Related to comments below: No dinosaur bones have been discovered. What have been recovered are dinosaur fossils. By definition, a fossil is any plant or animal with evidence of prehistoric life that is at least 10,000 years old. When minerals in ground water have replaced organic tissues, what is left is a solid or rock-like copy of the original specimen, referred to as a fossil. Furthermore, carbon 14 radiometric dating is not used to date fossilized specimens, but human made artifacts with precautions. For dating fossils, scientists measure isotopes from uranium-235, uranium-238 and potassium-40, because these radioactive elements have half-lives of more than a million years. A word of caution: A small, but vociferous, group of unscrupulous creation "scientists" with "PhD's" have hijacked the internet with YouTube videos and self-made publications claiming flagrant flaws in accepted dating methods and astronomical physics, only to bolster their entrenched claim for a "young earth," in the range of 8,000 to 12,000 years old. These opinions do not reflect the opinions of mainstream scientists, from any discipline, and their methods are not within current scientific research protocols and have not been subjected to legitimate peer review. Put simply, If the science is against you, attack the scientific method.
carbon team leader : remember the rule guys. only half of us may leave until the end of this half life. the rest please wait. so they'll think this fossil have lasted much longer. and save the rest of us in the museum. and live happily ever after. god bless us all
Are there other ways carbon 14 is made? How can you explain carbon 14 being found in samples presumably millions of years old? I didn't make up the age of the geologic column, but some moron did according to carbon 14. Who can point me in the direction of unbiased knowledge?
Great video, but one thing is to much simplified. Cosmic rays can´t transform protons to neutrons. The neutron i sligtly heavier than the proton and it is possible to convert neutrons to protons, radiating an electron, beta decay throug weak interaction.The cosmic rays transmut atoms in the atmosphere spreading out neutrons and protons.Most protons capture electrons and become hydrogen, but the neutral neutron continue and hit the most common element in the atmosphere, nitrogen. When nitrogen captures a neutron, it becomes an isotope of carbon by emitting a proton.
Perfect! This video was the most helpful video I found on Carbon Dating! I've been trying to understand how scientists date the Earth as oppose to fossils, this video explained things in such a way that I could apply the wisdom to understand dating the planet better, thank you!
I am writing to follow up on my message dated August 29th regarding the use of your video "Basic Trigonometry Review" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phZeE7Att_s) in our course SPH3U - Grade 11 University Prep Physics.
The Independent Learning Center (ILC) is a bilingual, non-profit educational institution that develops distance education courses at the high school level for students in Canada. The ILC offers courses in English and French to individuals who wish to obtain credits leading to a high school diploma, to update their basic knowledge or to study in order to improve their skills. The ILC is part of TVO, the province's educational broadcaster.
When you have a moment, could you please let me know if this video is available for licensing? Alternatively, if you wish to arrange a telephone call, please let me know when you might be available and I will reach out to you at your earliest convenience.
Thank you very much in advance.
Hi Kevin, So glad you liked the video! You can contact our licensing team at https://www.scientificamerican.com/page/contact-us/reprints-permissions/ to get more information about licensing that video, or any of our others that may fit your needs.
carbon dating is such complete bullcrap it never actually works they
dated a seal to be 10000 years old LMAO idiots dont believe this
bullcrap there is ZERO evidence of anything being more than 10000 years
old this carbon dating bullcrap is just propaganda to push the
Who was the first to use this style of dating and get these numbers? Also how do we not know that the amount of C14 hasn't been affected by say An Asteroid the size of Texas to emit more C14 into dead organisms ?
Willard Libby. (1947). Asteroids typically aren't "loaded" with Carbon, and are usually rock/ Iron or Ice, silicates. The "dino asteroid" was more like 6 miles; not the size of Texas. moreover a new, recent article suggests thusly: Bottke and his colleagues identified a particular cluster of asteroids that hadn't been studied much yet. Scientists can use computer models and an understanding of the physical forces that affect asteroids to essentially rewind time and determine where these fragments might have come from. In this case, they traced the fragments back to a giant asteroid cluster, whose largest body is now called (298) Baptistina.
But there was more to the story. Bottke's team also noticed that the breakup of Baptistina occurred near an "escape route" out of the asteroid belt. In this region, the gravitational kicks produced by the planets, in this case Mars and Jupiter, can change the orbits of the fragments, enough to push some of them out of the asteroid belt and into Earth's path. (Actually, about 100 million years would pass between their escape from the asteroid belt and one asteroid's collision with Earth, but that's not so long on a geologic time scale).
+JSkillz That is because living organisms take in and expel carbon dioxide. This will leave the ratio of C12/C14 equal to that of the atmosphere. (Until death when CO2 is not exchanged) However his question is, how are we certain that previous ratios were the same as present day.
My understanding is that you don't need to know the original amount of C14, the ratio of C12 and C14 is the same in every living organism. It's only when the organism dies that the C14 begins to decay, but crucially the C12 doesn't. Therefore, from the moment it dies the ratio between the two begins to change. Since we know the half life of the isotope, we can therefore know how long it's been since the organism died.
Thank you!! My son, right as I tuck him in: "Dada, how do scientists know how old something is?" Me, cleverly and not showing my panic: "It's bedtime. Ask me first thing in the morning. I'll tell you all about it" as I run to the internet for answers! haha.
So what's the deal with C-14 being found in ancient fossils and rocks? Why is it that we find C-14 in things that are supposed to be billions of years old? We shouldn't be able to see any if it's older than 100,000.
Government Shill Because there are a ridiculous amount of carbon atoms in a fossil so even though the number of carbon 14 atoms halves ever 5730 years, there are still trillions left after all that time (or some ridiculous number anyways)
I'm no expert and probably getting this wrong, but...
"How does the death of an animal suddenly start the C14 decay clock?"
If the animal dies, it's no longer taking IN C14 (because it isn't eating), only LOSING it at that point. Death doesn't "trigger" anything here. You can just assume that's when the decaying starts because it isn't maintaining anymore.
"Why would that affect any atoms?"
The C14 atoms are unstable isotopes (because they are radioactive) so the nucleus can change throughout time. The C14 changes into Nitrogen randomly/unexpectedly. All they are doing is averaging out the rate that C14 will change into Nitrogen (in other words...."decaying"). On average, half of the C14 will turn into Nitrogen in 5,740 years. So....in a way, it IS predictable to some degree.
Let's assume that C12 and C14 have 'reliable' half lives. How do we calculate how old something is unless we know the original C12:C14 ratio in an organism? Also, how do we know that radiation has collided with N14 at a constant rate throughout history? Wouldn't creatures near the poles be less exposed to it than creatures at the equator?
I commented that a long time ago but no one saw that. People just see what they want. Who has the right to tell me that I can't vaguely give a answer? In my opinion, no one does. So, I can answer in anyway I see fit.
Like I said before I never give anyone a direct answer. If I know you have the capability of researching the answer for yourself. I will answer vaguely. Here is my problem, people trying to get the answer from someone else in a comment section rather than researching the answer themselves with the device that they are using. Those people are idiots. I'm just pointing out the fact that you have the ability to find the answer and not look for a answer in a COMMENT SECTION.
but the C14 original amount is the only thing that actually matters. If there is a difference between species C14 content, then if an animal starved to death the C14 rate would drastically be different from other samples, as it hasn't consumed food for a while and only gets C14 from the atmosphere. Next, you would have to have an assumed amount for their common food, to have an accurate sample of the C14 amount. Next we are assuming that C14 is constant and the N14 content of the atmosphere has been constant for the last 5730 years...
funny funny funny i forgot to laugh....I'm referring to a date/number/data which gives a lot of dates and the result comes down to choice. It's okay if you're on Earth cause time is already established.
we don't because the atmospheres c14 is not stable (equilibrium), therefore this method is not reliable in any way. If the atmospheres c14 had been stable from about "80,000 yrs" (I believe that the earth is 6,000 yrs old btw) ago then it would be realiable.
+Hari Taqwan Santoso
here is a better explanation.
As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
+Hari Taqwan Santoso
this is simple. The ratio of c14 (which depletes over time) to c12 (which remains constant) is actually what is being studied. Therefore it doesn't matter if it is an elephant bone or a grain of rice.
I think an overly simplistic explaination does not answer of the real issues with C14 dating. There are issues of C14 deep in the column which cannot be easily explained. Why do living some living animals yield ancient carbon dating? Inconsistance data from same sample. The really old stuff that needs is really questionable is potassium/argon dating. I don't really understand how they derive these half life values. How do they know something has a half life of millons or billions? I think science at least needs to give all of the details, and make their disclaimers up front on testing methods. These methods are far from exact science and personally I think the argon test appear too large to be believeable and the C14 can't measure anything over 250,000 years old so you end up answers which are questionable. Science can only give a statistic about he objects decay, but translating that into "years" is dubious to be take as fact. Don't you think scientist should provide some comprehensive video to explain their confidence in this measurement.
+Brian L This doesn't disproove anything. If you always reduce something by half, there will always be something left. Walking halfway to the grocery store. Then half of the rest of the way and so on. You will never reach the grocery store, so there is always the chance of some C14 being left, no matter how long you wait.
This video is a great introduction to radiometric dating. It provides a great baseline understanding of carbon-14 dating in a simple, easy to understand manner. It explains how the carbon gets into organic material and how the ratios work in calculating the half-life of a sample. However, this is too short to provide any in depth explanation of how carbon-14 is formed and some of the flaws of carbon-14 dating. For example, the description states “How do scientists determine the age of fossils” while radiocarbon dating is helpful in some cases, most fossils are too old to be radiocarbon dated. Overall, this video is a quick and basic introduction to radiocarbon dating.
+Miles Stoj I know exactly what study you mean. However that study (I will try to edit this comment when I find it) was conducted to try to show the importance of controlling the factors of what you are carbon dating. The example used in that experiment was molsk shells, after carbon dating the molsk shells it showed that they where 20,000 years old however this was obviously false due to the reason no molsk can live anwhere close to 20,000 years. However the researchers where trying to show that the shells the carbon in the molsk shells they lived in where 20,000 years old, not the animal it self.
+Lebron Salvage here you go:
An atom is made up out of electrons, protons and neutrons.
Protons and neutrons sit in the core, electrons orbit the core.
The number of protons makes an atom do what it does. We name every number of these an element.
The number of neutrons can be different. Not all variations are strong.
The total of things in the core (proton + neutron) is the number you see. So C12 or N14 etc.
The "weak" ones can break up over time, by a certain chance.
This way we can calculate the age of something.
After doing a little research as collaborated in the many posts, it becomes clear that Carbon dating is far from an exact science and hardly reliable beyond a few thousand years. The claim that Carbon dating is accurate to 60 thousand years is highly unlikely and incapable of expressing the age of the earth by "millions" of years. I love science but lets be honest, the science of carbon dating is more hype than a truly reliable method for scientific observation.............. Debunked. :-\
+Roddy Yang Oh boy, another peer review genius...... Everything I stated above is 100% correct. Come back when you better understand the facts, then we have something to discuss. sheesh!.............................
It was the petrified trees that they tested and got really far off results.
as for Debries, lab results are rarely equitable to real-world results. We don't know the atmospheric composition from then, we don't know the C14 composition of plants and animals back then. It is all guestimation.
So when they date rocks that were formed from Mt. Saint Helens less than 50 years ago and the results show millions of years you're just going to ignore that and claim radiometric dating is reliable? haha.
+Andre M not really. All I have to assume is that the proven physics is true. And proven physics is
1) repeatable under lab conditions
2) alligns with all certain calculated values
3) predicts scenario's and events that occur
i cant find examples of items carbon dated to early centuries, say from 1st century till now.
all i find is a bunch of mumbojumbo about dinosaurs and atheist arguments. Its no wonder nobody believes in evolution. there isnt any proper list of items carbon dated to times where we have near perfect recorded history.
how about making tangible evidence and proving you can date an old painting or w/e from 2nd century.
+healthforwealth Ok let's do the math.
People did not have 20 kids on average, that's ridiculous.
So i'll make it a more reasonable 8 children per couple.
After a very basic calculation, you find that if the first 4 couples took 20 years to have 6 children, and every single generation after that did the same.
*In 100 years, you have a population of 2048.*
And note that this is a perfect world, where nobody dies in childbirth, or gets attacked by animals, or dies of disease. A more reasonable population estimate would be less than one thousand.
*Egypt had a population of 3.5 million people at this time in history*, they were building 500 foot immense tombs for their kings, *There was no flood.*
And if you want me to disprove the flood, i'll happy explain why it's wrong from a geological point of view.
+healthforwealth *"go then, study the bible best you can. Look for the archaeology. Look for the clues."*
Already did that friend, bought into the whole creationism thing. I though evolution was an evil lie from Satan. But I was sorely wrong, and my opinion was changed by reason and evidence.
*"Most religions in Asia worship statues of metal,
or they worship cows."*
At least they worship real things. However I find them equally ridiculous to Christianity.
*" Many other cultures/religions believe in The great flood as well."*
A few coastal civilizations have flood myths, because they live on the coast where floods and tsunamis are somewhat frequent. And some cultures like Hawaii and Caribbean islands have the global flood myth because it was passed to them by European Christians who colonized.
*"The sphinx has massive erosion in egypt, from water. They cant carbon date it because of this."*
I'll have to look this up, but can be nearly certain that it's just apologetic nonsense you read on a Christian website, that is not based on actual evidence.
Fun fact, the pyramids were being constructed about 4,000 years ago, *when the world wide flood supposedly just ended.*
How do you think the population increased from 8 people, *to the millions required to build the Pyramids and inhabit Egypt*, in just a couple years or decades?
You just need to provide real evidence. That's all I ask. Why shouldn't I be a Pagan? They've presented just as much evidence for their religion as you have... *Which is none.*
i cant just give you my faith and it enter your heart.
go then, study the bible best you can. Look for the archaeology. Look for the clues.
Life is precious. The universe is well designed.
Most religions in Asia worship statues of metal,
or they worship cows.
the old testament is older than the quran. Quran finished after 600AD in 23 years, and has same biblical stories of moses. Many other cultures/religions believe in The great flood as well.
The sphinx has massive erosion in egypt, from water. They cant carbon date it because of this.
I cant just show you who is God. But i can show you his word, and its up to you to study and find, whats good enough for you.
When is it enough.
+healthforwealth It's an interesting story (to say the least) very immoral. But there's simply no evidence to support any of it.
A few vague prophecies is not enough to convince me to fork my life over to a fictional character in the your book who claims to have written the book.
It absolutely amazes me that modern people living in the first world, with access to vast reservoirs of knowledge, would still rather believe the stories in a 3,500 year old Jewish book that details talking snakes, magical evil fruit, demon possessions, and witchcraft.
+Bogroll T yes I do know, but I was wondering why only when the animal dies, the C14 starts to decay, but now I knew, that's because the animal eats plants, so it keeps the ratio the same while the animal is alive, once it dies the decay takes place because there's no eating to balance the ratio.
Id like to ask you something about carbon dating. And this is why I think evolution and carbon dating is stupid.This isn't science. It not an observable fact, carbon dating is based almost completely on assumptions. Suppose you walk into a room, and see a burning candle on the table and I ask you the question when was it lit? Okay so lets do some empirical science which is things we can test and measure and observe and test. Not theoretical. Empirical, we can measure and weight it. 1. lets measure the heigh of the candle, suppose its 7 inches tall. Who can tell me when it was lit? 2. Lets measure the rate of burn, lets say 1" / hour. When was it lit? You're gonna have a hard time telling me unless you're willing to make some assumptions. How tall was it when it started? Heres an answer, you don't know. Has It always burned at the same rate? No idea. Say you find a fossil in the dirt and you can measure how much C-14 is in it. You can measure accurately, and can measure how fast its decaying. Thats just like measuring the height of the candle and how fast its burning. Now when did that animal die?? You don't have a clue. Unless you assume the rate of decay has always been the same, and you assume the c-14 it had when it was alive is the same what we have today. Living penguins carbon dated 8,000 years old. Stupid. Its still alive! Shells from living snail dated 27,000 years old. Thats stupid he's still alive. Yeah they're slow but 27,000 years he'd be dead. One part of a mammoth is 29,500 years old, and another part 44,000. Now you can probably see how funny I find it to read the comments of people talking about how evolution is a fact. Its stupid.
+Eddie King It isn't an ad-hominem attack if it is true, also I am not debating you, I am criticizing your lack of understanding of the basic principles of logic and science. PS They don't teach the principles of logic, philosophy, or epistemology in kindergarten. Also nice ad-hominem hypocrite. :)
I love this edgy look! I was so excited that her hair, even as short as it is now, was still able to be put into the fun and trendy dutch pigtail braids! Instead of braiding to the ends, I ended them in close together pigtails at the nape of her neck. After I finished braiding, I tugged on the outsides of the braid gently to loosen them and make them a little messy and fun! Since she doesn’t have enough hair to tie around the elastics, I made sure to use elastics that matched her hair so they blend in as much as possible. You could also cover them with clips or bows! A view from the back of her Dutch pigtail braids! A great braid for short hair is a micro accent braid! My biggest tip for braiding short hair would be to add in small slices of hair rather than big ones. I did a small (micro) braid along a slightly curved deep part for anther cute and edgy look! You could also do another one next to it if you wanted a little more to the look, but I really liked how simple this one was. You can see how the part curves a little better from this view of the back. I ended the braid close to the head with an elastic that matched her hair. For our fourth style, we did a 3/4 french braid! Super simple but also super cute! You could do any type braid! It would also look cute using a Dutch braid or a fishtail braid! I loved the side view of this braid! I will for sure be doing this one next time she goes to gymnastics or swimming, whichever comes first! Our last braid is two four dutch lace braids into two loops in the back. Start off by parting the hair down the middle. On each side of the part, do a dutch lace braid, adding hair in from only the section closest to the part as you braid. Tie the braids together in the back with a small elastic and before you pull the hair all the way through to make a ponytail, leave it in a cute little loop! If the hair is a little bit longer, you could do a tiny bun. Repeat this directly under the braid you just did so you have two rows and two loops.
We will have to be coming up with lots more short hair braids in the future, so be sure to give us a follow over at our newly redesigned blog Abella’s Braids to see more as we do them!
Thanks for reading! See you again this time next month!
love these ideas! My daughter recently cut about 8 inches off her hair and is loving her shorter hair, but I’ve mostly been at a loss of what to do with it! Thanks!
Abella has been begging me for at least a year, probably closer to two years, to cut her hair. I posted a photo on Instagram with a question in the caption. “Abella has been begging me to cut her hair short, do you think I should let her do it?” Almost everyone said “YES!” So thanks to all of the good advice from my followers, we did it…and we haven’t regretted it for a second! I think she looks so cute and it really fits her personality! It’s for sure a lot harder to come up with braids but it’s pushed me to step out of my comfort zone! We wanted to show you that even if you have short hair, there are lots of cute braids you can still do!
This first braid (above) is three ladder braids. Start out with a part deep to one side. On the side with less hair, start out by doing a waterfall braid along the part. Under that one, do another waterfall braid, but incorporate the waterfall pieces from the one above it as you braid. Under that one, do a french braid. Incorporate the waterfall pieces from the second braid as you go. We braided each one to the ends and used elastics that matched her hair to tie them off.